alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5298 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5298

   To prohibit the importation into the United States of sugar from 
                 countries that import sugar from Cuba.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 1994

 Mr. Diaz-Balart introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the importation into the United States of sugar from 
                 countries that import sugar from Cuba.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, sugars, syrups, and 
molasses, that are the product of a country that the President 
determines has imported sugar, syrup, or molasses that is the product 
of Cuba, shall be entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, 
into the customs territory of the United States, unless the condition 
set forth in section 2 is met.

SEC. 2. CONDITION FOR REMOVAL OF PROHIBITION.

    The prohibition set forth in section 1 shall cease to apply to a 
country if the country certifies to the President that the country will 
not import sugar, syrup, or molasses that is the product of Cuba until 
free and fair elections, conducted under the supervision of 
internationally recognized observers, are held in Cuba. Such 
certification shall cease to be effective if the President makes a 
subsequent determination under section 1 with respect to that country.

SEC. 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

    The President shall report to the Congress all determinations made 
under section 1 and all certifications made under section 2.

SEC. 4. REALLOCATION OF SUGAR QUOTAS.

    During any period in which a prohibition under section 1 is in 
effect with respect to a country, the President may reallocate to other 
countries the quota of sugars, syrups, and molasses allocated to that 
country, before the prohibition went into effect, under chapter 17 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. Sec. 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                 Philip D. Ellett                                                   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Philip                D. EllettChief                Executive OfficerFebruary                14, 2007 |   |   |   |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 529 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 529

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to require the impaneling of a 
new jury if a jury fails to recommend by unanimous vote a sentence for 
               conviction of a crime punishable by death.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2023

   Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Braun) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to require the impaneling of a 
new jury if a jury fails to recommend by unanimous vote a sentence for 
               conviction of a crime punishable by death.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Eric's Law''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO IMPANEL A NEW JURY IN CERTAIN CASES.

    (a) Additional Ground for Impaneling Jury.--Section 3593(b)(2) of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) a new special hearing is required pursuant to 
                subsection (g); or''.
    (b) Impaneling of New Jury When Jury Does Not Reach a Unanimous 
Recommendation.--Section 3593 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Special Rule When Jury Does Not Return a Unanimous 
Recommendation.--
            ``(1) In general.--If a jury described in subsection (b)(1) 
        or subparagraphs (A) through (D) of subsection (b)(2) does not, 
        by unanimous vote, make a recommendation whether the defendant 
        should be sentenced to death, to life imprisonment without 
        possibility of release, or some other lesser sentence pursuant 
        to subsection (e), the court, upon motion of the attorney for 
        the government, shall order a new special hearing and impanel a 
        new jury pursuant to subsection (b).
            ``(2) Imposition of sentence.--If the jury impaneled 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) does not reach a unanimous 
        recommendation as to sentence, the court shall impose a 
        sentence other than death authorized by law.''.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 12005SA012 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12005SA012

**Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded - PART TWO:ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TREATIES - TITLE I:INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - Article 12 **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 21/06/2005 P. 0207 - 0208 *

Article 12

The second paragraphs of Article 258 of the EC Treaty and Article 166 of the EAEC Treaty on the composition of the Economic and Social Committee shall be replaced by the following:

"The number of members of the Committee shall be as follows:

Belgium | 12 |

Bulgaria | 12 |

Czech Republic | 12 |

Denmark | 9 |

Germany | 24 |

Estonia | 7 |

Greece | 12 |

Spain | 21 |

France | 24 |

Ireland | 9 |

Italy | 24 |

Cyprus | 6 |

Latvia | 7 |

Lithuania | 9 |

Luxembourg | 6 |

Hungary | 12 |

Malta | 5 |

Netherlands | 12 |

Austria | 12 |

Poland | 21 |

Portugal | 12 |

Romania | 15 |

Slovenia | 7 |

Slovakia | 9 |

Finland | 9 |

Sweden | 12 |

United Kingdom | 24." |

--------------------------------------------------
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior United States District **

Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FRANCISCO RAMIREZ-REYNOSA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10001

D.C. No. 4:11-cr-01664-JGZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James K. Singleton, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted March 12, 2013*** 

Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Francisco Ramirez-Reynosa appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

FILED

MAR 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-10001

reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ramirez-Reynosa’s counsel has filed a brief

stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as

counsel of record. We have provided Ramirez-Reynosa the opportunity to file a

pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has

been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 481

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 to modify the full-funding limitation in

the case of multiemployer plans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1993

Mr. STARK introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to modify the full-funding limitation in the case of multiemployer plans.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) paragraph (7) of section 412(c) of the Internal

4 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to full-funding limitation)

5 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new

6 subparagraph:
2

•HR 481 IH

1 ‘‘(E) SPECIAL RULE FOR MULTIEM2 PLOYER PLANS.—Subparagraph (A)(i)(I)

3 shall not apply to a multiemployer plan.’’

4 (b) Paragraph (7) of section 302(c) of the Employee

5 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is amended by

6 adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraph:

7 ‘‘(E) SPECIAL RULE FOR MULTIEM8 PLOYER PLANS.—Subparagraph (A)(i)(I)

9 shall not apply to a multiemployer plan.’’

10 (c) The amendments made by this section shall apply

11 to years beginning after the date of the enactment of this

12 Act.

Æ
**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**PRECISION        OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION        1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                         |                                                                                                                         |                                      |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| Date: September                28, 2005 | By:                                                                                                                | /s/ Richard                E. Forkey |
|                                         | Richard E. Forkey, Chairman of the Board, Chief                  Executive Officer, President and                  Treasurer |
|                                         |                                                                                                                         |

|        |                                      |                                     |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                             | /s/ R.                Michael Arbon |
|   | R. Michael Arbon, Chief Financial Officer |
|   |

----
January 29, 2010 

Steve Weaver 

Federal Aviarion Administration 

Flight Standards District Office SO 15 

Citadel international. Suite 500 

5950 Hazeltine National Dr. 

Orlando, FL 32822-5023 

Re: Leaijet 60 Tire Pressure Inspection Waiver 

Dear Mr. Weaver: 

^M'Zc/o-e>ts4 

The FAA has informed Bombardier that it plans to issue an Airworthiness Directive regarding the 

Learjet 60 business jet. This is one element of a strategic effort to promote safety across the entire 

aviation industry with respect to proper tire inflation. 

Bombardier issued a revision to the Leaijet 60/60XR Airplane Flight Manual (change #37) that 

requires; 

• "The nose and main tire pressures must be checked within 96 hours (not flight hoxirs) prior to 

takeoff using the procedures hsted in Chapter 12 of the Learjet 60 Maintenance Manual." 

In a legal opinion issued by the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, dated 

February 26, 2009, Counsel writes that "checking tire pressure on a Learjet Model 60 aircraft is 

preventive maintenance and not a simple pre-flight inspection task". 

In order to meet the safety requirements of this Change and concurrently maintain our operational 

commitments, we have requested an exemption under 14 C.F.R. Part 11 which would allow our 

Learjet 60 pilots to check tire pressure. 

In accordance with FAR 135.325(a)( 1), the required pilot h:aining will incorporate Bombardier 

Learjet's online Tire Pressure Checking Customer Training Presentation that is located at 

http://yAvw.batraming.com. 

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this request. 

' Sinca^ . | i 

Leigh Mcintosh 

Assistant Director of Operations 

SK Logistics, Inc 

St. Augustine Airport (SGJ) 

121 Hawkeye View Lane • Si. Augustine, FL 32095 

Tel; (904) 827-1999 • Toll Free: (866) 564-4782 • Fax: (904) 827-1399 

Etnail; LeightSisk-iets.com • www,sk-jets.com
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.270 Permits. ( a ) *Commercial vessel permits.* ( 1 ) For a person aboard a vessel to be eligible for exemption from the bag and possession limits for dolphin or wahoo in or from the Atlantic EEZ or to sell such dolphin or wahoo, a commercial vessel permit for Atlantic dolphin and wahoo must be issued to the vessel and must be on board, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) The provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section notwithstanding, a fishing vessel, except a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat, that does not have a commercial vessel permit for Atlantic dolphin and wahoo but has a Federal commercial vessel permit in any other fishery, is exempt from the bag and possession limits for dolphin and wahoo and may sell dolphin and wahoo, subject to the trip and geographical limits specified in § 622.278(a)(3). (A charter vessel/headboat permit is not a commercial vessel permit.)
( b ) *Charter vessel/headboat permits.* ( 1 ) For a person aboard a vessel that is operating as a charter vessel or headboat to fish for or possess Atlantic dolphin or wahoo, in or from the Atlantic EEZ, a valid charter vessel/headboat permit for Atlantic dolphin and wahoo must have been issued to the vessel and must be on board.
( 2 ) A charter vessel or headboat may have both a charter vessel/headboat permit and a commercial vessel permit. However, when a vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat, a person aboard must adhere to the bag limits. See the definitions of “Charter vessel” and “Headboat” in § 622.2 for an explanation of when vessels are considered to be operating as a charter vessel or headboat, respectively.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Dealer permits and conditions* — ( 1 ) *Permits.* For a dealer to first receive Atlantic dolphin or wahoo harvested in or from the EEZ, a Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit must be issued to the dealer.
( 2 ) *State license and facility requirements.* To obtain a dealer permit, the applicant must have a valid state wholesaler's license in the state(s) where the dealer operates, if required by such state(s), and must have a physical facility at a fixed location in such state(s).
( e ) *Permit procedures.* See § 622.4 for information regarding general permit procedures including, but not limited to application, fees, duration, transfer, renewal, display, sanctions and denials, and replacement.
[78 FR 22952, Apr. 17, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 19496, Apr. 9, 2014; 87 FR 19018, Apr. 1, 2022]
On respondent’s motion for reconsideration filed December 20, 1993,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (119 Or App 162, 849 P2d 547 (1993)) modified; convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing March 2, 1994

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*DAVID EDWIN BROWN, *Appellant.*

(10-91-09590; CA A73889)

869 P2d 904

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, for motion.

Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, *contra.*

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Warren and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*632PER CURIAM

The state moves for reconsideration of our decision. *State v. Brown,*119 Or App 162, 849 P2d 547 (1993). We grant the motion and modify the opinion.

In our decision, we remanded for resentencing only on particular counts of the indictment and otherwise affirmed. Under the 1993 version of ORS 138.222(5), Or Laws 1993, ch 692, § 2, we must remand the entire case for resentencing. *State v. Dvorak,*124 Or App 578, 863 P2d 1314 (1993), *rev den*318 Or 351 (1994).

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified; convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
§ 95.745 Operation of an RCRS transmitter by remote control. This section sets forth the conditions under which an RCRS station may be operated by remote control, pursuant to the exception in § 95.345. ( a ) *Wireless remote control.* No person shall operate a RCRS station by wireless remote control.
( b ) *Wired remote control.* Before operating an RCRS station by wired remote control, the operator must obtain specific approval from the FCC. To obtain FCC approval, the operator must explain why wired remote control is needed.
§ 14.55 Exceptions to clearance requirements. Except for wildlife requiring a permit pursuant to part 17 or 23 of this subchapter B, clearance is not required for the importation of the following wildlife: ( a ) Shellfish and fishery products imported for purposes of human or animal consumption or taken in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States or on the high seas for recreational purposes;
( b ) Marine mammals lawfully taken on the high seas by United States residents and imported directly into the United States; and
( c ) Certain antique articles as specified in § 14.22 which have been released from custody by Customs officers under 19 U.S.C. 1499.
( d ) Dead, preserved, dried, or embedded scientific specimens or parts thereof, imported or exported by accredited scientists or accredited scientific institutions for taxonomic or systematic research purposes. *Except:* That this exception will not apply to any specimens or parts thereof taken as a result of sport hunting.
[45 FR 56673, Aug. 25, 1980, as amended at 61 FR 31869, June 21, 1996]
# EUR-Lex - 11994NN01/11/F1 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11994NN01/11/F1

**ACT concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, ANNEX I - List referred to in Article 29 of the Act of Accession - XI. INTERNAL MARKET AND FINANCIAL SERVICES - F. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY - I. PATENTS **

*
Official Journal C 241 , 29/08/1994 P. 0233 *

F. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY

I. PATENTS

392 R 1768: Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ No L 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1).

(a) In Article 3 (b) the following is added:

'For the purpose of Article 19 (1), an authorization to place the product on the market granted in accordance with the national legislation of Austria, Finland, Norway or Sweden is treated as an authorization granted in accordance with Directive 65/65/EEC or Directive 81/851/EEC, as appropriate`;

(b) Article 19 (1) is replaced by the following:

'1. Any product which on the date of accession is protected by a valid patent and for which the first authorization to place it on the market as a medicinal product in the Community or within the territories of Austria, Finland, Norway or Sweden was obtained after 1 January 1985 may be granted a certificate.

In the case of certificates to be granted in Denmark, in Germany, in Finland and in Norway, the date of 1 January 1985 shall be replaced by that of 1 January 1988.

In the case of certificates to be granted in Belgium, in Italy and in Austria, the date of 1 January 1985 shall be replaced by that of 1 January 1982.`;

(c) in Article 20, the following subparagraph is added:

'With regard to Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden, this Regulation shall not apply to certificates granted in accordance with their national legislation before the date of accession.`.
Exhibit 31.2.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Louis
G. Baldwin, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment on Form 10-K/A of XTO Energy Inc.;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Amendment.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                         |  |  |  | 
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | 
|Date: April 29, 2010 |  |  |  | /S/ LOUIS G. BALDWIN    |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | Louis G. Baldwin        |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |
#### § 70.5 Enforcement, penalty, and procedural requirements for violations of parts 25, 26, and 27.

The enforcement, penalty, and procedural requirement provisions set forth in part 28 of this chapter are equally applicable to national fish hatchery areas.